The American ethnographic film canon remains dominated by straight white men. As anthropology takes on the task of confronting the riddle of white supremacy, this might be a good time to consider who remains missing from popular taxonomies of anthropological cinema and to bring them into the canon. Unsurprisingly, the voices of immigrant diasporic queers of color are absent. By revisiting the ethnographic cinema of four such filmmakers—Marlon Riggs, Pratibha Parmar, Frances Negrón‐Muntaner, and Richard Fung—I call for an expansion of existing histories and a renewed focus on queers‐of‐color erasure. Their films challenges orthodox definitions of visual anthropology. Making films around the same time that some of the most canonical ethnographic films were released, these filmmakers anticipated current discussions of affect and autoethnography. Their work offers unique and productive insights into our understandings of race, gender, sexuality, and power relations. Questioning the limits of what counts as “documentary,” these filmmakers rethink colonial frameworks of ethnography itself. Confronting the patriarchal white supremacy of anthropology demands attention to these important works. [ethnographic film, visual anthropology, transnational, diaspora, queers of color]

中文翻译：

---

非视觉人类学的非殖民化：在民族志电影院中找到跨国流放的异国情调的声音

美国民族志电影的佳能仍然是白人直男的主导。当人类学承担着面对白人至上之谜的任务时，这可能是一个很好的时机，考虑谁仍然是人类学电影的流行分类法中所缺少的人，并将其带入经典。毫不奇怪，没有移民的流放性酷儿的声音。通过重新审视四家这样的电影制片人的民族志电影院，他们是马龙·里格斯（Marlon Riggs），普拉蒂巴·帕玛（Pratibha Parmar），弗朗西斯·内格朗·芒塔纳（FrancesNegrón-Muntaner）和理查德·冯（Richard Fung），我呼吁扩大现有历史，并重新关注消除同色异色的问题。他们的电影挑战了视觉人类学的正统定义。在与一些最经典的人种志电影发行的同一时间制作电影，这些电影摄制者预料到当前有关情感和人种志的讨论。他们的工作为我们对种族，性别，性取向和权力关系的理解提供了独特而富有成效的见解。这些电影制片人质疑什么才是“纪录片”的局限性，因此他们重新思考了民族志学本身的殖民框架。面对人类学的父权制白人至上主义需要关注这些重要的著作。[人种志电影，视觉人类学，跨国，散居，色彩酷儿]